4 ms·

> I just don't want it shoved in their face, as is inevitable when it's just a click away But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone el

by adamors 13y ago

> I just don't want it shoved in their face, as is inevitable when it's just a click away But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right? If you want to block porn in your house you're free to do so. If you're not able to do that, either hire someone to do it for you or just don't allow your kids near the internet. Problem solved.

retube 13y ago
> But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right? Oh I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to voice a differing opinion to the HN hivemind or your particular world view? I thought this site encouraged constructive discussion?
- adamors 13y ago
  Quit being so defensive, I'm not talking about expressing opinions on HN! I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else.
  - estel 13y ago
    Well, the filter as implemented is entirely optional - the ISPs have made it an "active choice" to enable or not - it's not something I've felt is being forced down my throat.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      No, it is not entirely optional. It is optional for the account holder, which means a substantial percentage of the population, including a substantial percentage of the population above the age of 18 is subject to the whims of the person in whose name the connection is. Many of those may not have the realistic option of voicing their preference. And many of those do not have the realistic option of moving out.
      - estel 13y ago
        Those were the people who already had no ultimate control over the restrictions on their connection. Hasn't the billpayer always had the ability to restrict their connection and set terms of use on people using it?
        vidarh 13y ago
        Tell them, yes. But actively filtering have been substantially more effort. None of the routers I've been given from my various broadband providers in the UK have had filtering options that would have allowed this, which means said person would either have to explicitly go out of his way to lock down the provided router and put a filtering firewall in between, or lock down each computer in the household with filters. That it has been technically possible for a very small portion of the population to oppress their family members further does not strike me as a good reason for making it a one click option.
        girvo 13y ago
        It forces conversations for some people that would never have otherwise needed to happen (but might have, in some cases). If you as a parent feel that this needs to be blocked, why not do it yourself on your own network? Everyone's happy then. Nation wide filtering seems heavy handed to me.
      - yourad_io 13y ago
        And it is also on-by-default, for both new and existing customers. (Or at least this was the initial plan, if something has changed since July, please do correct me)
andyjohnson0 13y ago
"But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right?" retube simply said that he/she agreed with it in the context of their parental responsibilities. It is unlikely that they are responsible for policy/implementation of this filtering, and nobody here is telling you what to do.
retube 13y ago
I can't reply to your child comment: > I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else But you're free to opt-in if you want, I am not trying or arguing to limit your access.

by adamors 13y ago

retube 13y ago

> But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right? Oh I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to voice a differing opinion to the HN hivemind or your particular world view? I thought this site encouraged constructive discussion?

adamors 13y ago
Quit being so defensive, I'm not talking about expressing opinions on HN! I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else.
- estel 13y ago
  Well, the filter as implemented is entirely optional - the ISPs have made it an "active choice" to enable or not - it's not something I've felt is being forced down my throat.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    No, it is not entirely optional. It is optional for the account holder, which means a substantial percentage of the population, including a substantial percentage of the population above the age of 18 is subject to the whims of the person in whose name the connection is. Many of those may not have the realistic option of voicing their preference. And many of those do not have the realistic option of moving out.
    - estel 13y ago
      Those were the people who already had no ultimate control over the restrictions on their connection. Hasn't the billpayer always had the ability to restrict their connection and set terms of use on people using it?
      - vidarh 13y ago
        Tell them, yes. But actively filtering have been substantially more effort. None of the routers I've been given from my various broadband providers in the UK have had filtering options that would have allowed this, which means said person would either have to explicitly go out of his way to lock down the provided router and put a filtering firewall in between, or lock down each computer in the household with filters. That it has been technically possible for a very small portion of the population to oppress their family members further does not strike me as a good reason for making it a one click option.
      - girvo 13y ago
        It forces conversations for some people that would never have otherwise needed to happen (but might have, in some cases). If you as a parent feel that this needs to be blocked, why not do it yourself on your own network? Everyone's happy then. Nation wide filtering seems heavy handed to me.
    - yourad_io 13y ago
      And it is also on-by-default, for both new and existing customers. (Or at least this was the initial plan, if something has changed since July, please do correct me)

andyjohnson0 13y ago

"But you're perfectly content with shoving your views down everyone else's throat, right?" retube simply said that he/she agreed with it in the context of their parental responsibilities. It is unlikely that they are responsible for policy/implementation of this filtering, and nobody here is telling you what to do.

retube 13y ago

I can't reply to your child comment: > I was commenting on your arguments for a filter that limits the web for other people. Like I said, you're free to limit your internet as much as you want. The problem is when you want to do it for everyone else But you're free to opt-in if you want, I am not trying or arguing to limit your access.